Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.

One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.

He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.

There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me  and I have this on tape  that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.

Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

Reed Irvine is the chairman of Accuracy In Media, a media watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

In your apparently irrational zeal to "get" someone here you display your ignorance of procedures. Even critics such as Ian Goddard admit that the NTSB has SUPREME jurisdiction over all air disasters, even over the FAA, and even over the Air Force if it so chooses to exercise such jurisdiction.

So ... is this going to be your spin ... that the NTSB asked the Air Force to skip its Safety Board in the Brown case ... for the FIRST TIME in Air Force history (except for that one friendly fire shoot down)? Perhaps you can quote from some source that proves the NTSB "exercised" its "jurisdiction" in the Air Force case? Or is this just another lame story concocted by someone trying to defend the indefensible?

In fact, you destroy your own case, because the fact that the Air Force gave UP this jurisdiction when (to the conspiratorial thinker) it could have superceded "official" channels, proves all the more this was handled in a normal manner.

If you want to maintain this was handled in a normal manner because the Air Force "gave up" jurisdiction, then you are going to have to first prove that happened. While the NTSB was involved in the Accident Investigation following the Brown crash, the Air Force was definitely still in charge. You've provided no basis for believing that the NTSB invited itself, told the Air Force to skip the Safety Board or was in any way or shape in control of the post crash investigation. In fact, you are making up another story because you can't explain the facts any other way.

On the Brown case, don't be ridiculous. "I can get six pathologists . . . blah, blah, blah." That's like saying you can get six lawyers to agree to some position you have.

The six I mentioned in the above posts were all highly respected. I can quote sources that prove it. They include ALL of the pathologists we know who were directly involved in the Brown case. The ONLY name I know of that still maintains it was definitely blunt force trauma is Dickerson, head of AFIP, who is demonstrable LIAR. If it is as easy as you say to get a pathologist to support your apparent view that Brown died by blunt force trauma, then prove it. Name one! Why are you having a problem coming up with even one name?

Yes, pathologists have looked at Brown's photos,

Fine. PROVE IT. NAME ONE. Stop trying to associate the case with other "conspiracies" and just NAME ONE PATHOLOGIST who says Brown died by blunt force trauma and did not need an autopsy.

In the absence of real evidence (radar data, actual sworn court testimony by Naval officers on board the vessel that "fired" the missile), why do you keep recirculating rumors and third-hand references?

I'm not saying anything about the TWA800 facts so you might as well get off that. I only stating that a government/military conspiracy is possible as the facts in the Ron Brown case appear to prove. That is what the other poster claimed isn't possible. As to what I've posted being rumors and third-hand references, you are being dishonest. It is not "rumor" that the pathologists say Brown had what looked like a bullet wound in his head and should have been autopsied. It is not rumor that a photo of an x-ray the government has acknowledged as authentic appears to show a lead snowstorm. It is not a rumor that the originals of the photos and x-rays have disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP. It is not a rumor that a military officer accused another, UNDER OATH, of tampering with the x-ray machine to hide signs of a lead snowstorm. And as to these being "third-hand" references, these statements have been supported by live interviews with Captain Janoski that you yourself can listen to on the internet if you wish.

And if the pathologists come to one conclusion about Brown, what makes you think that even well-trained honest Air Force people would not come to a completely different conclusion based on the fact that they AREN'T pathologists? In your view, they can't possibly disagree with your world conspiracy and be "honest."

Name one of those "well-trained, honest" Air Force people that has come to a different conclusion. I can name several that agree with my concern. What's your problem? Aren't ANY of those who believe Brown died by blunt force trauma willing to put their name on that conclusion. Or are they ALL hiding behind the AFIP manager ... who I've already shown above is a LIAR? I'll be happy to debate the facts with you ... IF you have ANY to offer. So far all you've done is throw out FICTION, disinformation and distraction.

One of the best analyses of this incident I've ever seen on the internet was at a site called deepseeker. It was from a physics student that analyzed the details available to try to find out what might have happened to the plane. Great read. The original article is now archived at:

"If Kallstrom came clean about the three naval vessels, he insisted on lying about the fourth, telling Reed Irvine that the critical "30 knot track" represented a helicopter, a preposterous speculation."

Witnesses Mislead By What They Saw - Optical Illusion Fools Public into Misinterpreting What They Saw

Most of those alleging a "missile shootdown" of the 747 misinterpreted the events observed by the witnesses because they assumed the Massive Fireball explosion was at 13,800 feet and that the fiery streak that immediately preceded and tracked to it was a missile.

But there is clear and compelling documented evidence that the Massive Fireball exploded far later in the sequence of events and far lower in the sky. The key to understanding what the witnesses actually saw is the altitude of the Massive Fireball explosion.

...

In a letter to the FBI's James Kallstrom dated 28 March 1997 confirming earlier communications, the CIA stated in part as follows: [Note - the portions in bold print are supportable by eyewitness reports but the portions italicized are not and appear to have arisen out of inept and incomplete FBI "302 form" interviews, a subject that will be covered in more detail later in this review.]

Just after the initial explosion at 8:31.07.5 PM, the aircraft pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its cruise altitude of 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet. This is consistent with information provided by National Transportation Safety Board and Boeing engineeers indicating that the front third of the aircraft, including the cockpit, separated from the fuselage just two to four seconds after the initial explosion. This significant sudden loss of mass from the front of the aircraft caused the rapid pitch-up.

The initial explosion was not seen by any known witnesses but the subsequent fire trailing from the aircraft was clearly visible to many of the closest eyewitnesses on the land and sea, and some of the witnesses in other aircraft. The rising, burning aircraft is consistent with what some eyewitnesses described as "an ascending, bright white light resembling a flare or firework".

Shortly after Flight 800 reach the apex of its ascent - about 15 seconds or so after the initial explosion - a SECOND explosion occurred. This explosion was clearly visible to many witnesses, and often was described as "a small fireball". It was not as loud as the initial explosion, but was clearly audible more than 10 miles away.

Following this second explosion, the aircraft went into a very steep and rapid descent, falling 2 miles and traveling horizontally almost 2 miles in less than 25 seconds. As the aircraft descended, it produced an increasingly visible fire trail. When it reached an altitude of about 1 mile - 42 seconds after the initial onboard explosion - the aircraft's left wing separated from the fuselage, releasing the unburned fuel in the left wing's fuel tanks. The fuel's subsequent ignition and burning produced a dramatic fireball visible to eyewitnesses more than 40 miles away, and detected by an infrared sensor aboard the US Defense Support Program (DSP) missile warning satellite.

About 50 seconds after the initial explosion - eight seconds after the left wing detached - the aircraft and detached wing hit the water.

A more LIKELY cause of TWA800's accident (devoid of agendas and based on *real* research and science) ...

Inadvertent Opening of Forward Cargo Door in Flight

Each aircraft had the forward cargo door rupture/open in flight; one cause was called correctly (UAL 811), two were called bombs (AI 182 and PA 103) and one is unknown (TWA 800) but may be called bomb or fuel explosion near cargo door as probable cause.

The forward cargo door ruptured/opened in flight on all of them. Why the door rupture/opened is a mystery.

United Airlines Flight 811:

Probable Cause:

The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression."NTSB/AAR 92/02 Page 92

Air India Flight 182:

"There is considerable circumstantial and other evidence to indicate that the initial event was an explosion occurring in the forward cargo compartment." Canadian Aviation Safety Board Air India 23 June 1985, page 58

Pan Am Flight 103:

"Cause:The in-flight disintegration of the aircraft was caused by the detonation of an improvised explosive device located in a baggage container positioned on the left side of the forward cargo hold at aircraft station 700."

Trans World Airlines Flight 800:

"Investigators also said that a cargo door, presumably the front one, had been found significantly closer to Kennedy International Airport, where the flight originated, than almost all of the other parts located so far."

Investigators from NTSB believe the initial event was a center fuel tank explosion.

The FBI continues to believe it was bomb or missile.

Comment:

Doors ruptured/opened leading to fatal accidents on four aircraft.

Why doors ruptured/opened is a mystery.

The distinct crash similarities of aircraft type, radar returns, wreckage plot, sudden short loud sound, abrupt power cut, fodded engines, inflight damage, missing bodies, torn off noses, and start place of damage qualify three aircraft into one class from which the deduction may be made that one unifying cause had the same effects.

Another accident with the same similarities except for a torn off nose and less wreckage may also be included in that class. The unifying cause for all four accidents is the inadvertent rupture/opening of the forward cargo door inflight. 2 Nov 97

Sequence of Destruction for TWA Flight 800

Hot humid air in forward cargo compartment was subjected to cold conditioned air after takeoff on hot summer evening near New York on July 17, 1996. Condensation was precipitated out and formed on cold metal fuselage skin. Poly-X wire bundle which held cargo door motor on power was chafed by the friction of continuous vibration against clamp or many door openings and closings on it. Sheath around bundle was worn through to insulation and then worn through to bare wire. Condensed water met the bare wire and shorted against fuselage metal charring wires and powering on door motor which attempted to turn all ten cam sectors to unlocked position.

At 13700 feet MSL and 300 KCAS, the eight lower cam sectors were prevented from unlocking because of strengthened locking sectors. However, the two midspan latches have no locking sectors. The slack in bellcranks, torque tubes, and high time worn cam latches allowed the aft midspan latch to rotate just past center allowing the 3.5 PSI internal pressure to rupture outward the forward cargo door at the aft midspan latch.

The nine foot by eight foot squarish door burst open at midspan latch sending the latch and door material spinning away in the setting sun which reflected upon the shiny metal as it spun away erratically and appeared as red-orange streak to ground observers moving all which ways. The aft door frame was clean of attachment to door and bulged outward. Fuselage skin was torn vertically. The door fractured and shattered. The bottom eight latches held tight to the bottom eight latch pins on bottom sill while bottom external skin of door blew away. The top piece of red topped cargo door opened out and up smashing into the white fuselage skin above it leaving the red paint of the door on the white paint between passenger windows above. The red paint of the trim was rubbed away showing the white paint underneath The top piece of the door took the hinge with it and fuselage skin as it is tore away. The loose red painted trim piece and top of door flew directly aft and impacted the right horizontal stabilizer leaving a red paint transfer mark on it. The hinge still appears to be working normally likely having overtravel impression marks on the opposite hinge when door overextended to slam on fuselage above. The top piece of the door shows inward damage when it hit fuselage above.

The explosive decompression of the thirty eight thousand pounds of internal force on the door blew out a large hole about twenty feet wide and forty feet high on the right side of the nose forward of the wing. Parts of the cargo hold structure were the first parts to leave the aircraft. The now uncompressed air molecules rushed out of the huge hole equalizing high pressure inside to low pressure outside while making a very loud noise. Fuselage skin was peeled outward at various places on the right side of the nose. The sudden rushing air was recorded on the Cockpit Voice Recorder as a sudden loud sound. The explosive decompression of the forward cargo hold severely disrupted the nearby main equipment compartment which housed power cables and abruptly shut off power to the Flight Data Recorder.

At least nine passenger's bodies were never found, only bone fragments. The number three engine also ingested metal in baggage and started on fire from inefficient burning of fuel. The number three engine with pylon started to vibrate and a stator blade from the engine was spit out and impacted directly behind it in the right horizontal stabilizer.

The floor beams above the cargo hold were bent downward, fractured and broken from the sudden decompression. The main structural members of door and frame were gone and compromised. The flight attitude of the aircraft was askew to the left from reaction of explosive decompression to the right. Air rushed into the hole and weakened other skin and frame peeling skin outward. The 300 knots of air pressed upon the weakened nose and crumpled it into the large hole. The nose tore off and landed in a dense debris heap apart from the rest of the plane.

The port side forward of the wing was smooth and unshattered while the starboard side forward of the wing was shattered, torn, and frayed at ruptured cargo door area and severely disturbed over twenty feet by forty foot explosive decompression zone. Outward petal shaped fuselage skin appeared at aft midspan latch from rupture. Aft midspan latch was blown away. Outward peeled skin appeared from blowout. Fuselage skin remained smooth next to blown out skin.

The rest of the plane without the nose suddenly decelerated from 300 knots and caused whiplash injuries to passengers. Passengers inside fuselage had baro-trauma to eardrums which ruptured trying to equalize middle ear pressure. The plane maneuvered with huge gaping wound in front increasing drag. The wind force disintegrated the fuselage and wings. Fuel poured out of ruptured tanks as wreckage fell. The broken fuselage, the ruptured wings, the fuel cloud, the center tank, and the spinning, on fire engine number three met at 7500 feet and exploded into a bright loud fireball putting singe marks on the fuselage skin while leaving earlier departed nose burn and singe mark free. The center tank exploded as well as other nearby fuel tanks. Forward passengers were not burned because they were in the earlier separated nose.The debris fell and spread out from 7500 feet to sea level in windblown southeast direction, leaving a wide debris field.

Ground observers heard the fireball explosion of the center tank and other fuel and looked up. They saw fire and smoke and falling debris.

Explosive decompression at the forward cargo hold led to suspicion of bomb in cargo compartment but bomb later ruled out. Debris ejected to the right from explosive decompression led to suspicion of missile exploding on left side of nose. Streak of shiny metal object spinning away reflecting evening sun to ground observers led to suspicion of missile exhaust but later ruled out.

Fuselage rupture at aft midspan latch of forward cargo door inflight is initially rejected because bottom eight latches are found latched around locking pins while two midspan latches are unexamined and status unreported.

1. Sudden loud sound on Cockpit Voice Recorder is described as start of aircraft breakup but not sound of explosion. Sound on CVR does not match other staged Boeing 747 center tank explosion. How can an explosion in the center tank be powerful enough to start the aircraft breakup and blow off nose of Boeing 747 and not be heard on CVR?

Sudden loud sound is sound of explosive decompression which gives a sudden loud sound when forward cargo door ruptures/opens in flight. The TWA 800 sudden loud sound was linked to PA 103 sudden loud sound on CVR which was linked to AI 182 sudden loud sound on CVR which was linked to DC-10 cargo door explosive decompression on CVR. UAL 811 had a cargo door rupture/open in flight and recorded a sudden loud sound on the CVR. The sound is the sudden rushing of air molecules which were compressed now moving fast outward to equalize with the lower pressure outside air.

2. Center tank explosion would be spherical, not directed, and would either give no damage forward of the wing or about equal damage on both sides of the fuselage of TWA 800. The wreckage reconstruction shows smooth skin with little damage forward of the wing on the port/left side yet severe, shattered, torn, and frayed damage on the starboard/right side of the fuselage in the cargo door area. How can a center tank explosion cause unilateral damage only on starboard side?

Explosive decompression and rupture of forward cargo door area when aft midspan latch ruptures would give shattered, torn and frayed, damage to cargo door area while leaving port/left/opposite side smooth and light damage. Cargo door rupture would give the unilateral damage on starboard side as shown by TWA 800 wreckage.

Explosive decompression in nose of TWA 800 would give outward peeled skin in nose, outward rupture hole, and paint transfers as internal high pressure rushes outward to equalize with the low outside pressure.

4. TWA 800 wreckage reconstruction shows red paints smears only above the forward cargo door area and nowhere else on both side of the Boeing 747 fuselage. This indicates that the red painted door below ruptured/opened outward, slammed upward, and smashed into the white painted area above and transferred red paint from door onto white paint between windows. How did red paint smears get where they are?

After the rupture at aft midspan latch the door fractured and upper piece of the red painted door was pushed outward, rotated on its hinge, slammed upward and smashed into the white painted fuselage skin above, transferring red paint to the white painted area between the passengers windows, as shown by the TWA 800 reconstruction. UAL 811 also had paint transfer from door to fuselage when its door opened in flight.

5. A center tank explosion would be far enough away from power cables to allow the Flight Data Recorder to record longer than the abrupt power cut it suffered. How can a center tank explosion which is not loud enough to be heard on the CVR and some distance away be strong enough to abruptly cease power to the FDR?

The explosive decompression in the cargo compartment would severely disrupt the cargo hold floor and the adjacent main equipment compartment in which the FDR and power cables are located. The severe disruption would abruptly cease power to the FDR. UAL 811 also had abrupt power cut when its cargo door opened in flight.

6. How could forward cargo door rupture/open when bottom eight latches are latched and locked in TWA reconstruction?

The forward cargo door of Boeing 747s is about nine feet by eight feet square. It has a hinge on the top and eight cam latches on the bottom. On each nine foot side is one midspan latch. The bottom eight cam latches go around eight latching pins. Over each cam latch is a locking sector. The two midspan latches have no locking sectors. The forward cargo door could rupture at the midspan latch and the hinge and bottom eight latches could still be attached to fuselage skin. The top of the door with hinge attached would tear off with the fuselage skin and spin away. The bottom eight latches could stay attached to bottom sill and continue down to the sea with the nose. The middle of the large door can still be ruptured/opened while the lower part stays attached to airframe. Doors can open/rupture with most or all latches latched. TWA 800 reconstruction shows aft mid span latch missing which implies it became unlatched. The aft door frame sill is smooth and not attached to door which implies door opened in that area.

7. How could forward cargo door rupture cause center tank explosion?

When cargo door ruptures in flight a huge hole is created in nose which the 300 knot slipstream tears off. The falling, noseless, structurally compromised aircraft disintegrated into wings of rupturing fuel tanks, fuselage pieces including center tank, and spinning hot on fire jet engine. When falling debris reached about 7500 feet, the fodded on fire engine number three ignited the fuel cloud and center fuel tank into a fireball. Center tank fire/explosion occurred but later and lower than forward cargo door rupture initial event.

Event, consequence, significance, source for destruction sequence:

1. Hot humid air in forward cargo compartment was subjected to cold conditioned air after takeoff on hot summer evening near New York on July 17, 1996.

NTSB exhibits gave takeoff time and temperatures plus the airconditioning system in Boeing 747s.

2. Condensation was precipitated out and formed on cold metal fuselage skin.

Water was available to ground any bare wires to fuselage skin. Observation made of water cascading out of forward cargo hold of Boeing airliner by John Barry Smith standing in concourse at San Francisco Airport on December 6, 1997.

3. Poly-X wire bundle which held cargo door motor on power was chafed by the friction of continuous vibration against clamp or many door openings and closings on it. Sheath around bundle was worn through to insulation and then worn through to bare wire.

7. The nine foot by eight foot squarish door burst open at midspan latch sending the latch and door material spinning away in the setting sun which reflected upon the shiny metal as it spun away erratically and appeared as red-orange streak to ground observers moving all which ways.

Press reports reveal eyewitnesses say different colored streaks going every which way from all directions. Time of 8:31 PM and angle of low sun to aircraft in east and observers to the west had to be perfectly aligned for spinning falling shiny piece of metal to reflect as streak to observers.

8. The aft door frame was clean of attachment to door and bulged outward.

Explosive decompression bursts outward limited by stringers and bulkheads which are vertical and match the other cargo door accident, UAL 811. NTSB photograph shows the vertical tears of TWA 800.

10. The door fractured and shattered.

NTSB photograph shows the damage. 38000 pounds of force were suddenly released onto now weakened door and it burst apart. 99 inches times 110 inches times 3.5 PSI equals 38115 pounds of force on the ten latches and hinge.

The bottom of large door held tight while middle of door ruptured in a troublesome section of a high time Boeing 747, Section 41 and Section 42. TWA 800 had not yet had the Section 41 retrofit. NTSB exhibit states bottom eight latches latched.

12. The top piece of red topped cargo door opened out and up smashing into the white fuselage skin above it leaving the red paint of the door on the white paint between passenger windows above. The red paint of the trim was rubbed away showing the white paint underneath. The top piece of the door took the hinge with it and fuselage skin as it is tore away.

The loose red painted trim piece and top of door flew directly aft and impacted the right horizontal stabilizer leaving a red paint transfer mark on it.

The hinge still appears to be working normally likely having overtravel impression marks on the opposite hinge when door overextended to slam on fuselage above.

The top piece of the door shows inward damage when it hit fuselage above.

Sequence of door opening out and up and transferring paint above is described in text and drawing in NTSB AAR 92/02. Inward movement of top of door is described in AAR 92/02. Normal working hinge attached to top of door is described in AAR 92/02. Overtravel impression damage is described in text and picture in AAR 92/02.

13. The explosive decompression of the thirty eight thousand pounds of internal force on the door blew out a large hole about twenty feet wide and forty feet high on the right side of the nose forward of the wing.

NTSB photograph shows decompression rectangle zone on right side of nose.

14. Parts of the cargo hold structure were the first parts to leave the aircraft.

The first parts of plane to depart indicate trouble started there. NTSB exhibits show first parts to leave were from cargo structure.

15. The now uncompressed air molecules rushed out of the huge hole equalizing high pressure inside to low pressure outside while making a very loud noise.

NTSB AAR 92/02 states crew of UAL 811 heard a 'tremendous explosion,' when door opened in flight.

16. Fuselage skin was peeled outward at various places on the right side of the nose.

18. The explosive decompression of the forward cargo hold severely disrupted the nearby main equipment compartment which housed power cables and abruptly shut off power to the Flight Data Recorder.

Cables for power and signal run through the forward cargo hold to the adjacent MEC. The cargo floor is severely disrupted when explosive decompression occurs in cargo hold according to AAIB 2/90 report and will cut off power abruptly.

19. At least nine passenger's bodies were never found, only bone fragments.

Where did those bodies go? What happened to them to reduce them to bone fragments requiring DNA analysis to identify? At least nine bodies always disappear when explosive decompression occurs in high time Boeing 747s according to AAIB, NTSB, TSB and Indian reports.

20. The number three engine also ingested metal in baggage and started on fire from inefficient burning of fuel. The number three engine with pylon started to vibrate and a stator blade from the engine was spit out and impacted directly behind it in the right horizontal stabilizer.

NTSB AAR 92/02 describes the sequence of FOD into number three and also number four and the subsequent vibration and fire.

21. The floor beams above the cargo hold were bent downward, fractured and broken from the sudden decompression. The main structural members of door and frame were gone and compromised.

22. The flight attitude of the aircraft was askew to the left from reaction of explosive decompression to the right. Air rushed into the hole and weakened other skin and frame peeling skin outward.

AAR 92/02 describes the actions of the aircraft after door opened in flight.

23. The 300 knots of air pressed upon the weakened nose and crumpled it into the large hole.

AAIB and TSB/Indian reports describe how nose came off after explosion in forward cargo hold at 300 KCAS of two Boeing 747s.

24. The nose tore off and landed in a dense debris heap apart from the rest of the plane.

AAIB 2/90, TSB/Indian Court, and NTSB TWA 800 exhibits describe the dense nose debris field present when nose comes off in flight of three Boeing 747s.

25. The port side forward of the wing was smooth and unshattered while the starboard side forward of the wing was shattered, torn, and frayed at ruptured cargo door area and severely disturbed over twenty feet by forty foot explosive decompression zone. Outward petal shaped fuselage skin appeared at aft midspan latch from rupture. Aft midspan latch was blown away. Outward peeled skin appeared from blowout. Fuselage skin remained smooth next to blown out skin.

AAIB 2/90, TSB/Indian, and NTSB photographs describe the lesser damage port side nose compared to the more severely damaged starboard side as well as the outward peeled skin on nose of three Boeing 747s.

27. The rest of the plane without the nose suddenly decelerated from 300 knots and caused whiplash injuries to passengers. Passengers inside fuselage had baro-trauma to eardrums which ruptured trying to equalize middle ear pressure.

28. The plane maneuvered with huge gaping wound in front increasing drag. The wind force disintegrated the fuselage and wings. Fuel poured out of ruptured tanks as wreckage fell. The broken fuselage, the ruptured wings, the fuel cloud, the center tank, and the spinning, on fire engine number three met at 7500 feet and exploded into a bright loud fireball putting singe marks on the fuselage skin while leaving earlier departed nose burn and singe mark free. The center tank exploded as well as other nearby fuel tanks. Forward passengers were not burned because they were in the earlier separated nose. The debris fell and spread out from 7500 feet to sea level in windblown southeast direction, leaving a wide debris field. Ground observers heard the fireball explosion of the center tank and other fuel and looked up. They saw fire and smoke and falling debris.

NTSB exhibits describe the breakup sequence and NTSB video shows fireball seconds later and thousands of feet lower than initial event. Engine number three was on fire for AAIB 2/90 and number four was on fire for NTSB AAR 92/02 after cargo hold ruptures.

29. Explosive decompression at the forward cargo hold led to suspicion of bomb in cargo compartment but bomb later ruled out.

Debris ejected to the right from explosive decompression led to suspicion of missile exploding on left side of nose.

Streak of shiny metal object spinning away reflecting evening sun to ground observers led to suspicion of missile exhaust but later ruled out.

Fire/explosion of center tank into fireball led to suspicion of center tank explosion as initial event.

NTSB public hearing reveals the gaps in the center tank as initial event explanation.

31. Fuselage rupture at aft midspan latch of forward cargo door inflight is initially rejected because bottom eight latches are found latched around locking pins while two midspan latches are unexamined and status unreported.

"Forward cargo doors are opening inadvertently in flight in high time Boeing 747s, causing death and destruction, AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800. Full documentation for claim is on URL: http://www.corazon.com/crashcontentspagelinks.html "

Forward Cargo Door, main equipment center, number three engine, right wing fillet all seen clearly

Inside.

Forward cargo door seen closed

Comment: These pictures of all models of Boeing 747 show the relationships among forward cargo door, the number three engine, the nose, the main equipment compartment, passenger seating, and large tail.

The open minds ask these questions in any order:1. How and why does forward cargo door open in flight? 2. How does open door in flight cause nose to come off for AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800? 3. Why did nose of UAL 811 stay on? 4. AI 182 and PA 103 not a bomb? 5. TWA 800 not center tank as initial event? 6. Explosive decompression enough to tear nose off? 7. Is there a conspiracy to keep cargo door explanation quiet?

Let me answer those basic questions briefly:1. I don't know about AI 182, PA 103, or TWA 800, but UAL 811 door open cause was electrical short to door motor to unlatch position which overrode safety locking sectors and failed switch and door unlatched and opened.

2. Cargo door opens and huge ten by thirty foot hole appears in nose, structural members of door and frame are missing, floor beams are fractured, bent, and broken, aircraft direction is askew, flight control surfaces affected, engines damaged, and 300 knots, more than the fastest hurricane or force five tornado on earth, hits damaged area and tears nose off within three to five seconds.

3. Nose of UAL 811 may have stayed on because pilot said he had just come off autopilot and did not fight plane as it gyrated, or plane was younger than others, or the time from door opening to tearing off was 1.5 seconds and allowed the pressurization to be relieved somewhat and six less feet of width of hole was torn off. Cargo door inadvertently opened on the ground during UAL preflight in 1991 and no damage was done. Cargo door opened in flight two inches on PA 125 in 1987 and stayed attached to fuselage and only damage was cost of fuel dumped. Cargo door opened in flight for UAL 811 in 1989 and nine died when door tore off. Cargo door explanation for AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800 has door opening inflight, tearing off, and then nose tearing off leading to three similar accident wreckage patterns, debris fields and total destruction. Door openings have different consequences depending on altitude, speed and mode of flight.

4. Yes, not a bomb for AI 182 and PA 103 as initial event. Evidence refutes bomb explanation and is in government accident reports which careful analysis will reveal and documented on www.corazon.com. Those accident investigators did not have the benefit of hindsight, the internet, or several subsequent similar accidents to compare and draw different conclusions.

5. Center tank exploded yes, but after door ruptured/opened, hole appeared in nose, nose torn off in wind, fuselage falling with disintegrating fuel tanks and ignited by fodded and on fire engine number 3 or 4 at 7500 feet thereby explaining the Chairman's question, "Why so few bodies burned?" The answer is they were not there to be burned. The nose came off with the passengers inside cabin and descended to ocean alone. The center tank exploded into nothingness not the passenger compartment.

6. Explosive decompression is enough to rupture pressurized hull at weak spot, one latch for eight feet of door, in a weak area, Section 41, but not enough to tear nose off. The ultimate destructive force is the 300 knots of slipstream, more powerful than any wind on earth. If cargo door popped in balloon, the large hole would appear but the nose would stay on. In a tornado, nose comes off within three to five seconds.

7. There is no conspiracy, no plot, no coverup by anyone involved with the cargo door explanation:

a. No conspiracy of Sikh terrorists named Singh to put a bomb on AI 182; the door ruptured in flight.

b. No conspiracy of Libyan terrorists or whoever to put a bomb on PA 103; the door ruptured in flight.

c. No conspiracy to detonate a bomb on UAL 811 as the passengers thought, as the crew thought and told the tower who told the Coast Guard and crash crews on the ground as they prepared for a wounded 747 coming in after a bomb blast; the door ruptured in flight.

d. No conspiracy to put a bomb on TWA 800, no conspiracy of terrorists to shoot a missile, no coverup by US Navy to hide accidental shootdown, no coverup by Boeing, NTSB, FAA, TWA who know the cargo door is the problem and are hiding that knowledge; the door ruptured in flight.

There is no conspiracy or cover up or plot but it is understandable for the public and others to believe that explanation: Cargo door cause is subtle.

1. The explosive decompression of door rupture mimics a bomb with noise and blast effects.

2. The events happen years apart in different jurisdictions with different airlines.

3. Explosive decompression of door rupture leaves no direct evidence such as soot, only noise on CVR tape.

4. The cargo door manufacturer and operator are large and highly respected companies.

6. A door opening and slipstream are considered trivial things by the public who thinks of a car trunk opening at highway speed not understanding high internal force of pressurization, large size of cargo door, and destructive force of 320 miles per hour on weakened structure.

7. Cargo door explanation assumes responsibility for rupture by manufacturer, operator, government, while bomb or missile can be blamed elsewhere.

Wire bundle gets chafed by continuous door openings and closings on it. Sheath around bundle gets worn through to insulation. Insulation gets worn through to bare wire. Bare wire shorts against metal powering on door motor which turns cam sectors to unlocked position. On TWA 800, at 13700 feet MSL and 300 KCAS, the eight lower cam sectors were prevented from unlocking because of the strengthened locking sectors which now have steel doublers as per AD 88-12-04. However, the two midspan latches have no locking sectors at all. The slack in bellcranks, torque tubes, and high time worn cam latches allowed the aft midspan latch to rotate just past center allowing the 3.5 PSI internal pressure to rupture the forward cargo door at the aft midspan latch.

The nine foot by nine foot squarish door burst open at midspan latch sending the latch and door material spinning away in the setting sun which reflected upon the shiny metal and appeared as streak to ground observers. The aft door frame was clean of attachment to door and bulged outward. The door fractured at midline and shattered. The bottom eight latches held tight to the bottom eight latch pins on sill while bottom external skin of door blew away. The top piece of red door slammed out and up smashing into the white fuselage skin above leaving the red paint on the door on the white paint between passenger windows above. The top piece of the door took the hinge with it and fuselage skin as it is tore away. The hinge appears to be working normally while having overtravel impression marks on the opposite hinge when door overextended to slam on fuselage above.

The now uncompressed air molecules rushed out of the nine foot by thirty foot hole equalizing high pressure inside to low pressure outside. The sudden rushing air was recorded on the Cockpit Voice Recorder as a sudden loud sound. The explosive decompression of the forward cargo hold disrupted the nearby main equipment compartment and abruptly shut off power to the Flight Data Recorder.

The door hole was now at least nine feet by thirty feet large. At least nine passengers were blown out of the hole into the nearby number three engine which mulched them up into tiny bone fragments. The number three engine also ingested metal in baggage and started on fire from inefficient burning of fuel. Then the number three engine with pylon started to vibrate and soon detached from wing as designed.

The floor beams were bent, fractured and broken. The main structural members of door and frame were gone and compromised. The flight attitude of the aircraft was askew to the left from reaction of explosive decompression to the right. Air rushed into the hole and weakened other skin and frame peeling skin outward. The 300 knots of air pressed upon the weakened nose and crumpled it into the large hole. The nose tore off and fell and landed in a dense heap before the rest of the plane.

Pieces of baggage and fuselage skin flew backward and left more severe damage on starboard side, such as right wing fillet, of TWA 800 fuselage than port side.

The port side forward of the wing was smooth and unshattered while the starboard side forward of the wing is shattered, torn, and frayed at ruptured cargo door area.

The rest of the plane without the nose suddenly decelerated from 300 knots and caused whiplash injuries to passengers. Passengers inside fuselage had baro-trauma to eardrums which ruptured trying to equalize middle ear pressure. The plane maneuvered with huge gaping wound in front increasing drag. The wind force disintegrated the fuselage and wings. Fuel poured out of ruptured tanks. The broken fuselage, the ruptured wings, the fuel cloud, the center tank, and the spinning, on fire engine number three met at 7500 feet and exploded into a bright loud fireball putting singe marks on the fuselage skin while leaving the nose burn free. Center tank exploded/caught fire as well as other nearby fuel tanks. The debris falls and spreads out from 7500 feet to sea level.

Ground observers hear the fireball explosion of the center tank and other fuel and look up. Noise of fireball to observers is about 50 seconds for the ten mile distance. They see the still falling shiny pieces of the forward cargo door as it is still falling from 13700 feet to the sea in about 60 seconds.

The detached burnt engine number three and pylon fall apart from the other three engines which fall together.

Explosive decompression at the forward cargo hold led to suspicion of bomb in cargo compartment but bomb later ruled out.

Streak of shiny metal object spinning away reflecting evening sun to ground observers led to suspicion of missile but later ruled out.

Fire/explosion of center tank into fireball leads to suspicion of center tank explosion as initial event but difficulty arises in determining ignition source, fuel volatility, unheard of explosion sound, unilateral damage, and weakness of tank needed for such an initial explosion.

Fuselage rupture at aft midspan latch of forward cargo door inflight is initially rejected because most of latches are found latched around locking pins.

1. Sudden loud sound on Cockpit Voice Recorder is described as start of aircraft breakup but not sound of explosion. How can an explosion in the center tank be powerful enough to start the aircraft breakup and blow off nose of Boeing 747 and not be heard on CVR?

2. Center tank explosion would be spherical, not directed, and would either give no damage forward of the wing or about equal damage on both sides of the fuselage of TWA 800. The wreckage reconstruction shows smooth skin with little damage forward of the wing on the port/left side yet severe, shattered, torn, and frayed damage on the starboard/right side of the fuselage in the cargo door area. How can a center tank explosion cause unilateral damage only on starboard side?

4. TWA 800 wreckage reconstruction shows red paints smears only above the forward cargo door area and nowhere else on both side of the Boeing 747 fuselage. This indicates that the red painted door below ruptured/opened outward, slammed upward, and smashed into the white painted area above and transferred red paint from door onto white paint between windows. How did red paint smears get where they are?

5. A center tank explosion would be far enough away from power cables to allow the Flight Data Recorder to record longer than the abrupt power cut it suffered. How can a center tank explosion which is not loud enough to be heard on the CVR and some distance away be strong enough to abruptly cease power to the FDR?

6. How could forward cargo door rupture/open when bottom eight latches are latched and locked in TWA reconstruction?

7. How could forward cargo door rupture cause center tank explosion?

Answers of forward cargo door rupture to questions which

evidence raises:

1. Sudden loud sound is sound of explosive decompression which gives a sudden loud sound when forward cargo door ruptures/opens in flight. The TWA 800 sudden loud sound was linked to PA 103 sudden loud sound on CVR which was linked to AI 182 sudden loud sound on CVR which was linked to DC-10 cargo door explosive decompression on CVR. UAL 811 had a cargo door rupture/open in flight and recorded a sudden loud sound on the CVR. The sound is the sudden rushing of air molecules which were compressed now moving fast outward to equalize with the lower pressure outside air.

2. Explosive decompression and rupture of forward cargo door area when aft midspan latch ruptures would give shattered, torn and frayed, damage to cargo door area while leaving port/left/opposite side smooth and light damage. Cargo door rupture would give the unilateral damage on starboard side as shown by TWA 800 wreckage. UAL 811 also had unilateral cargo door area damage when its door opened in flight.

4. After the rupture at aft midspan latch the door fractured and upper piece of the red painted door was pushed outward, rotated on its hinge, slammed upward and smashed into the white painted fuselage skin above, transferring red paint to the white painted area between the passengers windows, as shown by the TWA 800 reconstruction. UAL 811 also had paint transfer from door to fuselage when its door opened in flight.

5. The explosive decompression in the cargo compartment would severely disrupt the cargo hold floor and the adjacent main equipment compartment in which the FDR and power cables are located. The severe disruption would abruptly cease power to the FDR. UAL 811 also had abrupt power cut when its cargo door opened in flight.

6. The forward cargo door of Boeing 747s is over nine feet by nine feet square. It has a hinge on the top and eight cam latches on the bottom. On each nine foot side is one midspan latch. The bottom eight cam latches go around eight latching pins. Over each cam latch is a locking sector. The two midspan latches have no locking sectors. The forward cargo door could rupture at the midspan latch and the hinge and bottom eight latches could still be attached to fuselage skin. The top of the door with hinge attached would tear off with the fuselage skin and spin away. The bottom eight latches could stay attached to bottom sill and continue down to the sea with the nose. The middle of the large door can still be ruptured/opened while the lower part stays attached to airframe. Doors can open/rupture with most or all latches latched. TWA 800 reconstruction shows aft mid span latch missing which implies it became unlatched. The aft door frame sill is smooth and not attached to door which implies door opened in that area.

7. When cargo door ruptures in flight a huge hole is created in nose which the 300 knot slipstream tears off. The falling, noseless, structurally compromised aircraft disintegrated into wings of rupturing fuel tanks, fuselage pieces including center tank, and spinning hot on fire jet engine. When falling debris reached about 7500 feet, the fodded on fire engine number three ignited the fuel cloud and center fuel tank into a fireball. Center tank fire/explosion occurred but later and lower than forward cargo door rupture initial event.

The New York Times July 31, 1996, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 6; Metropolitan Desk LENGTH: 1244 wordsHEADLINE: FATE OF FLIGHT 800: THE OVERVIEW; JET'S LANDING GEAR IS SAID TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF BOMB BYLINE: By MATTHEW L. WALD DATELINE: SMITHTOWN, L.I., July 30

BODY: The front landing gear of the Boeing 747 that crashed off the coast here on July 17 shows such heavy damage that some investigators are convinced that it is the strongest evidence yet that the plane was destroyed by a bomb, Federal investigators said tonight.

The investigators believe that the landing gear was blown off the plane by a bomb blast. But several senior law enforcement officials said tonight that the finding still fell short of the definitive evidence that they said they needed before they could declare the crash the result of a criminal act. The landing gear would have been retracted into its housing inside the fuselage long before the plane exploded, and the hydraulic mechanism that retracts it was found to have "serious concussive damage," the result of a violent blow or impact, a Federal investigator said. "By the way it had been smashed, the bomb experts thought it had been very close to the source of the explosion."

The front cargo hold carrying passengers' baggage was just behind the landing gear. The first-class seating area was above. Investigators said this evening that they believe a bomb might have been in a passenger's bag -- or perhaps in a food cart or a bathroom in the cabin above.

For the last several days, law enforcement officials investigating the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 have been saying privately that they believed the plane was destroyed by a bomb, but they have been waiting to find a piece of clear physical evidence to support their theory. The latest discovery caused a stir among the divers, Navy and Coast Guard technicians and Federal agents who recovered the landing gear on Saturday.

Samples of apparent residue found on the landing gear have been sent to the F.B.I. lab in Washington to find if they hold chemical traces of an explosive. Thus far, they have not found such conclusive chemical evidence.

One investigator who viewed the hydraulic unit described the damage as "more like a crack than a tear."

"The vast majority of the wreckage has been these torn, mangled pieces of thin metal, from the fuselage," he added. "This was a huge piece of thick steel, and it had been blasted is the only way to describe it.

"For more than a week," he said, "everyone had been sifting through this wreckage, desperately searching for some sign of the explosion, but not really knowing exactly what we were looking for. Then when you see it, the kind of visible damage that had been done, you just know."

Investigators also said today that a cargo door, presumably the front one, had been found significantly closer to Kennedy International Airport than almost all of the other parts located so far, tending to support the theory that a bomb blew up in the forward cargo hold, blowing off the door.

The plane, bound for Paris with 230 passengers and crew members, was, in essence, decapitated as it was climbing to about 13,700 feet, spreading wreckage over several miles. The main section of the plane, engines apparently still running, flew on and plummeted to about 8,500 feet. There, it exploded in a fireball that was visible for miles........................................

NEW YORK (Reuter) - The front landing gear of the TWA Boeing 747 that crashed July 17 shows damage from a powerful blast inside the plane, the first physical evidence that the plane was brought down by a bomb, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The landing gear would have been retracted into its housing inside the fuselage long before the plane exploded and the hydraulic mechanism that retracts it was found to have ``serious concussive damage,'' the newspaper quoted a federal investigator as saying.

``By the way it had been smashed, the bomb experts thought it had been very close to the source of the explosion,'' said the investigator, who was not named.

The front cargo hold carrying passengers' baggage was just behind the landing gear. The first-class seating area was above.

Investigators said they believed a bomb might have been in one of the passengers' bags, or maybe in a food cart or a bathroom in the cabin above the landing gear.

However, ABC News said a National Transportation Safety Board official denied the newspaper's report. The plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island and 230 passengers and crew were killed.

For the last week, law enforcement officials investigating the crash of the New York-to-Paris flight have been saying they believed the plane was destroyed by a bomb, but they have been waiting to find a piece of clear physical evidence to support their theory. The landing gear was recovered by divers on Saturday.

Samples of apparent residue found on the landing gear have been sent to a Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory in Washington to find if they hold chemical traces of an explosive. So far such conclusive physical evidence has not been found.

One investigator who viewed the hydraulic unit described the damage as ``more like a crack than a tear.''

``The vast majority of the wreckage has been these torn, mangled pieces of thin metal, from the fuselage,'' he said. ''This was a huge piece of thick steel and it had been blasted, that is the only way to describe it.''

Investigators also said that a cargo door, presumably the front one, had been found significantly closer to Kennedy International Airport, where the flight originated, than almost all of the other parts located so far.

That find tended to support the theory that a bomb exploded in the forward cargo hold, blowing off the door.

Both ABC and CBS, however, reported that the newspaper's report had been denied by an NTSB official. Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom, who predicted two days ago that investigators would have more clues by now, said he felt more optimistic after a second heavy duty U.S. Navy salvage ship came on the scene on Tuesday afternoon.

``I suspect when we get more of the plane, we will know the answer,'' Kallstrom said.

Officials have said that giving priority to the recovery of victims' bodies over the recovery of evidence has slowed the investigation somewhat.

But, Robert Francis, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said: ``We're going to know why this airplane came down in the water.''

Both Francis and Kallstrom insist they lack the critical evidence needed to decide on any one of their three leading theories -- a bomb, missile or mechanical failure -- or to rule any one out. The Paris-bound plane erupted in a fireball about 70 miles (113 km) east of New York City.

``There are unprecedented things that happen on these complex aircraft that are not foreseeable,'' Francis said. ``We really have got to get the rest of the airplane to answer the question.''

Francis acknowledged that investigators studying the cause of the crash could have weeks or months of work ahead of them.

Investigators were eagerly waiting for the salvage ship, the USS Grapple, to retrieve a large piece of wreckage from the front section of the plane. ``I think we'll find out soon how critical it is,'' Kallstrom said.

Officials believe the front of the Boeing 747 broke off first, and the rest of the plane apparently remained airborne for several seconds before falling into the water.

The location of debris in two distinct areas lends weight to the theory that a bomb exploded in a forward cargo hold.

The Grapple is equipped to lift many thousands of pounds (kg) of material, but Rear Admiral Edward Kristensen cautioned that many other pieces of debris entangled with the plane's front section could complicate the process.

On Tuesday, searchers retrieved part of the plane's galley, a cargo door and a piece of its outer skin. Several seats from its first class and business section were visible on a barge filled with debris that pulled up to shore not far from the site of the crash off East Moriches, New York.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.